Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan 29;2(1):e000196.
doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2014-000196. eCollection 2015.

Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zoë Harcombe  1 , Julien S Baker  1 , Stephen Mark Cooper  2 , Bruce Davies  3 , Nicholas Sculthorpe  1 , James J DiNicolantonio  4 , Fergal Grace  1
Affiliations

Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zoë Harcombe et al. Open Heart. .

Erratum in

  • Correction.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Open Heart. 2015 Feb 20;2(1):openhrt-2014-000196corr1. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2014-000196corr1. eCollection 2015. Open Heart. 2015. PMID: 25722858 Free PMC article.

Abstract

Objectives: National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the US and UK governments, respectively, with the ambition of reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) by reducing fat intake. To date, no analysis of the evidence base for these recommendations has been undertaken. The present study examines the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) available to the US and UK regulatory committees at their respective points of implementation.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken of RCTs, published prior to 1983, which examined the relationship between dietary fat, serum cholesterol and the development of CHD.

Results: 2467 males participated in six dietary trials: five secondary prevention studies and one including healthy participants. There were 370 deaths from all-cause mortality in the intervention and control groups. The risk ratio (RR) from meta-analysis was 0.996 (95% CI 0.865 to 1.147). There were 207 and 216 deaths from CHD in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The RR was 0.989 (95% CI 0.784 to 1.247). There were no differences in all-cause mortality and non-significant differences in CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary interventions. The reductions in mean serum cholesterol levels were significantly higher in the intervention groups; this did not result in significant differences in CHD or all-cause mortality. Government dietary fat recommendations were untested in any trial prior to being introduced.

Conclusions: Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from RCTs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of systematic review profile.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Estimates of total mortality (95% CIs) from meta-analysis.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Estimates of CHD mortality (95% CIs) from meta-analysis.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Dietary goals for the United States. 1st edn Washington: US Govt Print Off, 1977.
    1. National Advisory Committee on Nutritional Education (NACNE). A discussion paper on proposals for nutritional guidelines for health education in Britain, 1983.
    1. Keys A. Coronary heart disease in seven countries. I. The study program and objectives. Circulation 1970;41(4 Suppl):I1–8. 10.1161/01.CIR.41.1.1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Keys A. Coronary heart disease in seven countries. Summary. Circulation 1970;41(4 Suppl):I186–95.. - PubMed
    1. Barton S. Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study. BMJ 2000;321:255–6. 10.1136/bmj.321.7256.255 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources